Pupil Support Staff Working Group minutes: January 2022

Attendees and apologies

Attendees:

• Fearghal Kelly, Scottish Government (Chair)
• Marion MacRury, Scottish Government (minutes)
• Josh Doble, Scottish Government – Learning Analysis (item 3)
• Bernadette Casey, AHDS
• Lucinda Fass, Scottish Government
• Jo Fell, Fife Council (Training and Development Officer)
• Frances Foreman, Education Scotland
• Janette Kerr, ASLO (Education Support Officer Dundee City Council)
• Deborah Lynch, Scottish Government
• Peter McNaughton, ADES
• Clare McGill, Scottish Government – Learning Analysis (item 3)
• Maria Pridden, Unison
• Catriona Thomson, Enquire
• John Urquhart, COSLA
• Amy Woodhouse, Children in Scotland

Apologies

• Stuart Robb, Scottish Government
• Matthew Sweeney, COSLA
   

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

The Chair (FK) welcomed members to the meeting and introductions were made for the benefit of those attending for the first time. FK noted that this was the first meeting of the group since transfer of responsibility. Congratulations were extended to Bernadette Casey on her recent doctorate.  

Note of last meeting

The minute of the last meeting of 7 December was approved and the following update on action points provided:

• action 4.1: members to seek feedback on draft consultation doc from colleagues, and provide written comments to SM prior to Christmas break - complete
• action 4.2: SM to redraft/refine document, taking account of feedback for beginning January – complete and on agenda item 4.2
• action 4.3: SG to seek guidance on differing versions/presentation - ongoing and discuss under item 4.2
• action 7.1: SG to canvass for January meeting dates - complete

Scottish School and Early Learning Workforce Survey

Learning Analysis colleagues had been invited to the meeting to present and seek views on the proposed Scottish School and Early Learning Workforce Survey. Josh Doble (JD) provided a presentation and accompanying slides which members could share with their organisations. JD summarised that some scoping work had been done in December 2020 and early 2021 to look into setting up a nationally representative survey of Scottish teachers. He noted that this work had now been refocussed to consider the workforce more holistically, as there was no regular representative survey of the education workforce in Scotland. Reference was made to existing surveys such as the Attainment Scotland Fund Headteacher Survey and PISA’s Teacher Questionnaires. The workforce survey would create a robust evaluative data collection, exploring workforce views on professional practice and promoting dialogue between tiers. Key findings could be presented nationally and potentially broken down by local authority or RIC level with areas of concern being identified for follow up research. The current proposal is for a survey to be run on a biennial basis in publicly funded schools and Early Learning Centres. It would include a set of core questions and one open-ended question at the end of the survey. Current advice from Education Scotland and GTCS suggested September as an appropriate timeframe for collection. JD noted there was no coherent definition of support staff and keen to hear the groups views on how best to approach/access.  JD undertook to circulate slides after the meeting and sought initial comments. 

Members were generally in favour of the survey and the inclusion of both pupil support staff and Early Learning Centres. There followed lengthy discussion on both the benefits and concerns and engaging support staff in particular. Fran Foreman (FF) referred to early work undertaken by the PSSWG on the range of titles of support staff across the 32 local authorities, and the complexities in definition. It was also noted that not all support staff worked in a classroom setting and the group had therefore defined support staff as those who provide support to the learning and teaching process and the well-being of children and young people. JD hoped that ‘learning/teaching & well-being’ worked as he wished to avoid the inclusion of staff such as school librarians/ home link workers/educational physiologists etc.  

Members noted that there could be issues with local authority e-mail addresses as well as providing time and space for support staff to complete. Suggestions included, identifying key local authority staff and promoting through the engagement and encouragement of teachers as well as utilising social media. It was acknowledged that it needed to be presented in a way that attracts pupil support staff. Amy Woodhouse (AW) suggested the potential in including questions on UNHRC as part of the survey. 

Concerns were raised regarding the proposal of running the survey in September as well as a number of other surveys and potential for survey fatigue. JD confirmed of early discussions with COSLA and noted point re survey fatigue but highlighted that the survey would provide ongoing data and trends over time based on the experience of the workforce. It was intended to run in the 2022/23 academic year and would therefore not clash with the Behaviour in Scottish Schools survey. JD confirmed advice would be sought from local authorities on the specific timing of the survey. FK noted the potential to reduce/ remove some of the ad-hoc surveys from the system with the level of information provided by the workforce survey. 

Caution was also raised as to the clarity of purpose and what impact it will have, especially if Scottish Government were not happy with the findings. It was acknowledged that it was a national survey by national government however local authorities were the workforce employers. JD noted concerns, highlighting the role of analysts to report on information collected and the importance of building relationships with local authorities to ensure improvement/change at school/classroom level follows.

• action 3.1: Learning Analysis (JD) to circulate slides, make benefits clear and explore timing of survey and bring back to group for consideration
• action 3.2: PSSWG members to forward any further comments to JD

Draft consultation

FK referred to the circulated papers and discussion at meeting on 7 December. Scott Miller had redrafted following the feedback provided. The text had been reduced and that the resources were now provided in a stand-alone document to meet the requirements of Citizen Space. Sections 1-3 focussed on resources whilst Section 4 now included questions on the future work of the PSSWG as well as the SNP/Green Part Agreement.

FK invited comments on the revised papers. Concerns continued to be raised on the length, formality and accessibility of the documents to pupil support staff. Comments were made that the questions in Sections 1-3 were too similar, although FK clarified that they related to different resources and if you asked as one it would be difficult to differentiate between resources. FK advised the group on the functionality of Citizen Space stating it was not possible to embed documents into an online questionnaire. Jo Fell (JF) noted her previous feedback suggesting the use of MS Forms and embedded videos and SM’s confirmation that this would not be possible for a formal consultation. The use of webinars were also suggested. 

There appeared to be support for a more simplified approach and therefore, FK asked if the group wished to step back from a formal consultation if it wasn’t meeting their requirements. He highlighted that it was a consultation on behalf of the PSSWG not a SG consultation. However, it would lose the opportunity to ask re SNP/Green Party Agreement. Members were in agreement in moving away from formal consultation, and there was some initial discussion as to suggestions as well as ensuring the involvement of children and young people. It was agreed to form a sub-group to discuss further and develop an outline Janette Kerr undertook to seek feedback from senior practitioners on 25th February.

• action 4.1: sub-group to meet and draft initial proposal in advance of 25th February
• action 4.2: JK to seek feedback from Senior Practitioners on 25th February

Remit and membership

FK referred to circulated paper and suggested initial amendments. He invited the group to consider remit and membership. Are there organisations missing or that could be invited to speak to group when relevant. 

• action 5.1: members to consider remit and membership and group to revisit as agenda item at next meeting

Any other business

JK noted the current difficulty in recruiting pupil support staff. FK to feed back to relevant policy colleagues. 

• action 6.1: FK to inform policy colleagues of current recruitment difficulties in appointing pupil support staff

Date of next meeting

It was agreed to schedule a meeting for late Feb, preferably week beginning 28th February.  

• action 7.1: SG to trawl for meeting date for February meeting date

Action log

• action 3.1: Learning Analysis (JD) to circulate slides, make benefits clear and explore timing of survey and bring back to group for consideration
• action 3.2: PSSWG members to forward any further comments to JD
• action 4.1: sub-group to meet and draft initial proposal in advance of 25th February
• action 4.2: JK to seek feedback from Senior Practitioners on 25th Febuary
• action 5.1: members to consider remit and membership and group to revisit as agenda item at next meeting
• action 6.1: FK to inform policy colleagues of current recruitment difficulties in appointing pupil support staff
• action 7.1: SG to trawl for meeting date for February meeting date